Other than "I don't like either (1) working all the time, (2) worrying that I'm going to be asked to work on something or (3) wondering why no one is asking me to work on anything." I mean everyone knows private practice sucks but I'm not sure how to give an answer that doesn't make me sound lazy or that's disparaging of private practice.

I want to work for one client - to really deeply understand their needs and business. To get ahead of problems instead of being called in to put out fires. You want to be a counselor, not a hired gun bro.

Any answer you give, this one included, will be the same canned bullshit they've heard before. Doesn't make it untrue though, so have an example of a client you worked closely with and highlight the aspects of that relationship that you liked.

Whoever is interviewing you left for the exact same reasons you want to.

In-House bro at mega corp here that's interviewed about 10 ppl so far. This is a good response. I'd also add that you want to express interest in collaborating with others on various projects from start to finish. Not sure what type of position OP is interviewing for but you'll need to tailor it to the position. If you're a pure contract negotiator, well, there is going to be some but not a lot of collaboration. If you're a product attorney, you'll need to work with business and other departments to review, approve, and introduce the new product. When we are looking at a new product, we may go to X firm for tax, y firm for regulatory issues, z firm for EU problems. Those firms only get a small portion of the project, but as the product attorney you're tasked with bringing it all together. That's one of the perks (consequences) of being in-house. You get to see the entire process.

Edit: The work-life balance mentioned by another poster is good, but for that's like 90% of the candidates.

That makes perfect sense but I'm a little worried about criticizing private practice because I feel like it can lead down a path where you're criticizing your current job which can be a bad look. Plus this is with a firm client, and it's probably not appropriate to say we're gauging them on fees.

You can say you want a better lifestyle without looking lazy. The way I described it in interviews was that I was at a point in my career (mid level) where I needed to make a decision if I was going to stay at a firm for the long haul or not and that I didn't see myself wanting to make partner, so this was the time to get out and look for other opportunities and xyz company happens to be an excellent opportunity because blah blah blah. I was interviewing with all ex-biglaw people so they all nodded in agreement and they talked about how much they hated firm life. People always like to hire those with the same mindset as their own and personality and cultural fit is a lot more important for in house.

From my experience, some canned response like "I want to really get to know one business" is fine and inoffensive but complete bs that won't really resonate with any interviewer.

Thanks. my only concern is that they may come back with: "well, at times we have to put in long hours too." And then I look like shit. But I guess I could point to the fact that I've been slavjng longer than most and hopefully that's a testament to the fact that I'm not averse to hard work.

It's best to memorize something that you can use for hard questions, something that kind of answers any hard question. Try to just memorize this for the tough ones and mentally prepared for follow ups: "In house for me, hmmm. Let me share with you my thoughts on it: When she runnin', you never see a hoe come in last, she's so fast she's got a 454 in her ass, you never gonna win that race, put on a seatbelt and don't let her sit on your face, she might kill you in the morning at 2:14, doin' the pussy pop like she from New Orleans. It's been a while more than 10 years past, when you close your eyes you can still see her ass."

Dude up there had a pretty good tip. I'd also say that the best response isn't always a legal one. The junior on my team still comes with the legal responses when there's a better way. If able, the junior would threaten some counter-parties with exercising our lien rights and selling the assets at any sign of trouble. Well, yea, we could do that and just piss away the entire relationship for a few hundred grand. Get the business involved and see what work around we can do, if any. If the business wants to smash and grab the assets, that's fine but they need to ok it.

"Look, I could sit here and deliver you the same canned bullshit line that everyone else uses: wanting a deeper understanding of the business, ability to think long term, blah blah blah. Fuck that, I'm not gonna do that. The real answer is, I'm a mother fucking pitbull, and I've got a taste for blood. All I need is for you to take the leash."

It depends on whether it is a legal or a business issue. All too often, it's a blend of both. Either way, you do your best to inform the decision maker of your analysis and recommendation (or other internal procedures, like presenting it before a deal committee); and most importantly document it -- a simple email may suffice. If it's more of a legal issue, then you escalate to your boss, who (if they support you) will do the same thing -- inform and document. Obviously, if it's illegal than you escalate.

Chances are if you have a big issue with it, there will generally be someone else that will flag it as an issue. My company has a deal committee, where we present big issues that the big wigs tell legal or business to go pound sand.

Yea, the hard part is that there is rarely equal negotiating power between entities and you have competing interests in a company.

I work at one of the biggest companies, and even we get fucked over because Company Y is the market in A (so we get take it or leave it terms). Sometimes you may need to involve relationship managers to try and get a better deal or terms. This happens often when someone just signs the agreement without reviewing it, and it resurfaces for some unknown reason -- e.g., an amendment or some subsidiary wants to use it too. So, it's your job (x years later) as an atty to say: "Yea, whoever reviewed this was a complete idiot. We need to fix X, Y, and Z. If we can't I need to disclose the issues/potential risk, and you need to approve it."